Last Thursday, in a bid to force President Trump to turn over his tax returns, the California State Senate approved Bill 27, thePresidential Tax Transparency and Accountability Act.

If the bill should become law, all presidential candidates will be required to submit their income tax returns from the past five years before their name can appear on the ballot. “The act would require the Secretary of State, within five days of receiving the returns, to make redacted versions of the returns available to the public on the Secretary of State’s internet website. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.”

The bill has been submitted to the California State House for consideration, and if it passes, it will go to Governor Gavin Newsom for his signature. However, his approval is not guaranteed.

According to the L.A. Times, the California State Senate and House passed an identical bill in 2017 which was vetoed by then-Governor Jerry Brown. He told state lawmakers it would likely be overturned in the courts.

In his veto message, Brown wrote, “The proposal could have led to other litmus tests for candidates. Today we require tax returns, but what would be next? Five years of health records? A certified birth certificate? High school report cards? And will these requirements vary depending on which political party is in power?”

For the sake of argument, let’s assume it becomes law in the state.

Such laws actually demonstrate why our founders saw the need to set up the electoral college.

The National Review’s Dan McLaughlin makes the case better than most, and he does so with flair.

His response to a California political official’s tweet set off a twitterstorm that has liberal heads exploding.

I’ve included the entire thread, but it’s not necessary to read the whole thing to get the gist of it.

Dan McLaughlin: @baseballcrank

As I noted in my Electoral College piece, a presidential candidate who is not even on the ballot in politically homogenous states – as Lincoln wasn't in the South in 1860 – skews the national popular vote. https://t.co/Vsp0Gkci7f

6. The California Democrat who was celebrating this plan has blocked me, but you will notice that its explicit intention is to discourage Republican voters from the polls. Which of course is fine with these folks https://t.co/52JlxPKIUb

8. I see a bunch of folks on the Left have belatedly discovered this thread, so let's address some of the big ones here. This one is of the "but it's OK when we do it" variety. (Also, note: none of those efforts were ever passed by an entire State Senate) https://t.co/7Gmxx5lHAL

10. As I noted in my article, a candidate getting 54% of the vote in states he wins but almost zero in the states he loses is not simply a hypothetical. It is what actually happened in 1860 to a Republican named Abe Lincoln. https://t.co/Vsp0Gkci7fhttps://t.co/lBT0d0J7fh

20. I don't see the need for that: not how it has historically been done & few states are as vast & diverse as the whole country. But not a terrible idea for, say, California if the districts were regularly re-weighted by pop like the EC. https://t.co/RPZnNDOpJ5

24. I'll circle back another day to the Electoral College's historical roots, which tend to be oversimplified by the progressive narrative. This, from a liberal historian, is a useful partial corrective https://t.co/tipWxiRhiYhttps://t.co/tf2pe53nQ9

26. Also the Solid South from 1880 to 1944 is an important part of the history. I dealt in this thread with the example of 1888, when the Electoral College prevented the lockstep Jim Crow South from re-electing Grover Cleveland. https://t.co/flZ2MAk0Zh

28. All of that said, while the Electoral College resolves popular vote pluralities, we do face a realistic possibility in 2020 of facing the Electoral College's real weakness: a tie decided by the House. Which would likely go to Trump, depending how the 2020 House races go. pic.twitter.com/Pjr3Rqbm7g

30. I guess some folks are still doing the thing where they call a plurality a majority? The main practical effect of the Electoral College is to resolve elections where there is no majority, like 2016. https://t.co/ykgW1lYExn

We aim to lead in each practice and area of law we work in. Coming from in-depth understanding of the law and the industry, capitalizing on extensive experience, we provide hands-on advice that speaks the language of our client’s business and/or legal issue.